"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Dimlee said:
Actually, it's even more bizarre. Russian encrypted comms system "Era" was reliant on the ground cellular network. But at the same time, some RF units were given orders to destroy cellular towers in Ukraine in the first days of the invasion.
Click to expand...

Yup...a No Strike List is a pretty standard part of the targeting process. Seems like there's even more "left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing" within the Russian operation than I've seen in Western ops...and I've seen some absolute doozies.
 
Dimlee said:
Actually, it's even more bizarre. Russian encrypted comms system "Era" was reliant on the ground cellular network. But at the same time, some RF units were given orders to destroy cellular towers in Ukraine in the first days of the invasion.
Click to expand...

Our saying in English: the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. That's some serious operational clusterfuck.

ETA: I just saw that buffnut453 buffnut453 got there first. Right call.
 
buffnut453 said:
I wonder if the Aussies could play a lead role in a non-NATO no-fly zone? They have AWACS capability, which will be critical, and are a modern, well-equipped (albeit small) military. However, they could be the nucleus around which other nations could get involved.
Click to expand...
A coalition of non aligned nations that have conducted joint exercises in tje past with similarly equipped nations, perhaps?

Along with Australia, it could include elements from Sweden, Israel, Japan, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.
 
Such a squandered opportunity for China to step up by brokering and enforcing some kind of humanitarian corridor. Instead they just sit on their hands denying anything bad is happening. Now if a Chinese plane were in Ukraine airspace, it would be interesting to see if the Russians would take a run at it. Fantasy I know but man, that would be nice.
 
Crimea_River said:
Such a squandered opportunity for China to step up by brokering and enforcing some kind of humanitarian corridor. Instead they just sit on their hands denying anything bad is happening. Now if a Chinese plane were in Ukraine airspace, it would be interesting to see if the Russians would take a run at it. Fantasy I know but man, that would be nice.
Click to expand...

China is showing a diffidence that tells the truth about how their leadership see themselves in the world. They are awaiting events to inform their decision, rather than exercising power to influence those events.
 
China is reputed to have a far longer planning horizon than at least the U.S. I've heard that about Chinese business planning 10 years out while American industry looked no further than next quarter. This was during my "manufacturing years". The talking heads I used to listen to on TV said that China plans long term. Based on anecdotal evidence, I believe China is a weathervane just watching to see which way the wind is blowing.
One Chinese transport plane would be more effective protecting a formation than a squadron of F-22s IMHO.
 
Phew! I haven't been here since page 16 (!) and man, this thing has grown! I'll have to go read through the whole lot again, but a few thoughts on a no-fly zone over Ukraine. It's a subject I recently wrote about. I'm a staff-writer for an online business magazine, with my input concentrating on aviation subjects, naturlich, and I put something up recently on this very subject.

Firstly, NATO: NATO Secretary-of-State Jens Stoltenburg has emphatically stated that NATO won't instigate a no-fly zone because of the fear of dragging European nations into full scale war. The reason behind this is Article 5 of the NATO Charter that states that an attack against one NATO member state is an attack against all NATO member states. Putin has stated that any incursion into Ukrainian airspace by a third party operative would be considered an act of war. This means that NATO's hands are tied unless it wants war with Russia, which no one, not even the Russians want.

So, the idea of a non- NATO no-fly zone has been toyed with and discussed, but at this stage there isn't the stomach for it for various reasons and we'll get to those soon. It has been proposed that a UN mandated no-fly zone is an option. It would have one immediate effect in that if the UN did propose such a resolution, like its previous one in which the overwhelming majority voted for Russia leaving Ukraine, it would be a more tangible recognition that the situation would be viewed as Russia versus the World in supporting such an action and not just Russia versus NATO, which it currently is, because of the persistent calls for a NATO no-fly zone.

The next point is that it then renders Article 5 invalid as the resolution would be implemented by the UN, not NATO, even though NATO member states would be providing the bulk of the equipment required to enforce a no-fly zone. The political difference here is the crux of the matter. If a UN member state aircraft were shot down, which also happened to be a NATO member state, because the no-fly zone was UN mandated, Article 5 would not apply.

Some analysts have proposed a limited UN mandated no-fly zone over the western half of Ukraine to protect refugees, which is doable and would have political support from world leaders owing to the humanitarian slant. This would focus on centres like Lviv, which is far enough to the west to be out of range of Russian military action at this stage and from where the humanitarian bodies are based within the country in aiding the refugee crisis.

The problem with all this is it doesn't consider the Russian reaction if the UN gets involved. Putin has "nuclear messaged" before, a term that indicates a threat of the use of nuclear weapons to enforce a point (I wrote a piece on this, too), which could see the deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons into the warzone.

Another point that has been raised regarding the action over the east of the country is that thus far, Russian air capability has been of limited application, certainly against what has been expected and what Russia has within its arsenal. What has been making appearances are Su-34 and Su-25 strike aircraft carrying largely 'dumb' weapons as opposed to 'smart' weapons and, as predicted, losses have been mounting, the Ukrainians having shot down both types. Helicopters, such as Mil-17s, Mil-24s, Mil-28s and Ka-52s have all been active and examples of all have been lost to ground fire.

This has led observers to point out that the majority of the destruction wrought by the Russians so far has been by artillery and missiles, so, some have stated, a no-fly zone over the east would be of little consequence. Imposing one would, of course then prompt calls for NATO/UN aircraft to carry out strikes against Russian supply lines etc, which definitely would invoke war...

Some photos I had put in my article, the Rafale M has been conducting patrols along the Polish border, NATO nation Vipers, Rivet Joint EW aircraft are currently on anti-air patrols and would support a no-fly zone and a Ukrainian Su-27, a nice piccie I had to find a use for.

51961354714_fdcd4e2113_b.jpg
Rafale M

51961354729_c7ac529eb4_b.jpg
NATO Vipers

51960070312_79a6a8f39e_b.jpg
Rivet Joint

51961354689_a07575e78a_b.jpg
Su-27

Excuse the lengthy post... Off to paint the deck before the summer sun fades.
 
SaparotRob said:
China is reputed to have a far longer planning horizon than at least the U.S. I've heard that about Chinese business planning 10 years out while American industry looked no further than next quarter. This was during my "manufacturing years". The talking heads I used to listen to on TV said that China plans long term. Based on anecdotal evidence, I believe China is a weathervane just watching to see which way the wind is blowing.
One Chinese transport plane would be more effective protecting a formation than a squadron of F-22s IMHO.
Click to expand...

Right, but can they, do they, respond to unfolding events in a supple manner?

The long-term is a great way to look at things, , but so too does a quick response allow a large nation to turn tight corners. Working in the long-term can telegraph motives.

One Chinese relief sortie would matter a lot more in terms of the message it send to Putin, rather than any shielding capacity.

I'm not sure the Chinese will come out ahead here. If they support Russia reclaiming Ukraine, that comports with their view towards Taiwan; but if they say it's not okay for Russia to do this, they sit on the side of world opinion, and undercut their own reasoning for reclaiming Taiwan.

Long-term thinking must be able to cope with these exigencies. The Chinese are running along a narrow bridge.
 
nuuumannn said:
It has been proposed that a UN mandated no-fly zone is an option. It would have one immediate effect in that if the UN did propose such a resolution, like its previous one in which the overwhelming majority voted for Russia leaving Ukraine, it would be a more tangible recognition that the situation would be viewed as Russia versus the World in supporting such an action and not just Russia versus NATO, which it currently is, because of the persistent calls for a NATO no-fly zone.
Click to expand...

How do you get this past a Russian Security Council veto?
 
buffnut453 said:
I know...but they aren't NATO. I picked on them because, frankly, nobody else out there has the capability to enforce a no-fly zone. There aren't many nations with AWACS capabilities and the Aussies are the only ones I can think of outside NATO. The only other one, who both sides might trust, would be Israel but I don't see Tel Aviv allowing its forces to deploy to Ukraine as that might open the door for hostile action by Iran and others.
Click to expand...
Maybe Australia, Israel, Sweden, Japan even India
 
So…apparently the MIA General in the Russian MOD had a heart attack after Putin tore him off a strip for not winning the war. Maybe….just maybe this will be a clue to the other cronies that maybe, just maybe, Putin isn't a very nice man:

Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukraine's interior minister, has claimed that Russia's defence minister suffered a heart attack.

Sergei Shoigu had not been seen publicly since 11 March, until he appeared briefly in a video released by Putin on Thursday 24 March.

"Shoigu's heart attack happened after a tough accusation by Putin for a complete failure of the invasion of Ukraine," Gerashchenko wrote on Facebook, adding that he is currently "undergoing rehabilitation" in hospital.

There has been no confirmation from Russia of Shoigu's alleged health problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Total: 2 (members: 1, guests: 1)

    Similar threads

    A
    The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
    2
    Replies
    37
    Views
    1K
    Sisu
    S
    M
    All V-22's Grounded
    Replies
    2
    Views
    1K
    GTX
    GTX
    M
    All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
    Replies
    19
    Views
    2K
    MIflyer
    M
    M
    The Wrath of KAAN?
    Replies
    3
    Views
    834
    Snautzer01
    Snautzer01
    M
    The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
    Replies
    2
    Views
    491
    Thumpalumpacus
    Thumpalumpacus
    Back